At least two Republican senators agree that authorizing military intervention in Syria should require a supermajority, but have yet to commit to a filibuster, the parliamentary move that would require 60 votes.

“I think it is advisable for the administration to request a 60 vote threshold,” Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations who voted against the panel’s resolution, tells TIME through a spokesperson. “The President needs to demonstrate that he gained the support of the public through a strong vote of support in the United States Senate.”

“There is an incentive for us to force a 60 vote threshold,” said an aide for another Republican senator. “That way it doesn’t pass and we signal to the House that there is not support for this and they don’t take it up.”

As of now, the White House and strike supporters still have a long way to go, a task made more difficult with President Obama overseas meeting with foreign leaders. A whip count by CNN, shows that 24 Senators, including seven Republicans have indicated that they support a strike, while 19 Senators, including five Democrats oppose a strike. In the House, where 217 votes are needed for passage, the numbers look even worse. Already, 115 members have committed to vote no, compared to 23 yes votes. Another whip count by ABC News, which takes into account those judged “likely” to support or oppose the action, show that there are already 217 members against the strike, and just 43 supporting it.

House leaders would prefer the Senate to vote first, and they will likely decline to act if the Senate fails. President Obama or a top White House official has lobbied “at least 60 senators,” according to the Washington Post,revealing the pressure under which the Administration is working.

It is not yet clear which member in the Senate will demand a 60 vote threshold for passing the Syria resolution. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted against the resolution in committee and filibustered John Brennan’s nomination to lead the CIA earlier this year, has walked back his filibuster threat. “A filibuster is especially inappropriate on a matter pertaining to the use of military force,” says Thomas Mann, a congressional expert for the Brookings Institute. “I don’t think the Republican leadership would support a filibuster.”

Despite authorizing the President to only hit “legitimate military targets in Syria” in a “limited and specified manner” without boots on the ground for 90 days, there are still a number of questions that remain in how the President will be limited that could sink the resolution. For example, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have expressed that additional language might be needed to determine what happens if Syrian President Bashar Assad decides to use a chemical weapon on the “91st day,” opening the possibility of a drawn-out conflict.

The resolution also doesn’t define what type of lethal aid it will provide to which “vetted” opposition forces besides the Free Syrian Army, which sometimes coordinates with extremists. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) are considering a completely new proposal that would give Assad 45 days to sign a chemical weapons ban or face “all elements” of U.S. military power,” according to the Washington Post.

The longer the Senate debates the issue, the less likely the resolution’s chance is for passage, which is why Reid is trying to pass the authorization as fast as possible. The Senate had planned on returning from summer recess on Monday, but Reid has decided to convene a pro forma session to file the resolution at noon on Friday. The legislative process will then start on Monday, allowing a cloture vote Wednesday, and debate to begin on Thursday.

Please, anyone knows whose idea it was for the UN to only mandate investigating if chemical weapons were used and not to find out the user, how they aquired them and the country of origin? cause we the USA are chiefly the manufacturers of this gas

I can't see how this is America's battle. Lets review history: Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan - how many deaths and what did America do for theses places - at what cost;how did our will prevail?

We have an abysmal track record. Our politicians simply are not listening to us: no more war - and if you believe this crap about a limited strike, no boots on the ground, I have a bridge to sell you. Obama even now claims he didn't create the red line - what a load of BS.

I strongly urge every American to send your congressman and senators an e-mail telling them how you feel - they do get the message - but if you do nothing, we all lose.

No more useless wars. He even said its not about regime change. Okay, then stay out of it. The union tended consequences will be worse than the act, but a fool never stirs the pot when the downside is so catastrophic. It's already raised tensions, now our fuel costs are high - and believe me, Obama and their ilk don't care about that - we're just starting to see light at the end of the tunnel and he's stirring it up - look at your fuel costs.

Why don't the Arab countries that we've paid trillions of dollars fix this, why us? We have lots of US issues to throw money at - bankrupt cities, high murder rates in cities like Chicago - ObMa's home town - fix us first - we don't even know who the good guys are. McCain was playing poker during the senate hearing - what a sac he is - he needs to retire - he's lost it.

Mr ashton, sorry again to meddle in your comments, but is necessary to clear some ideas. In the third point of your comment I think you are carried away by your enthusiasm. In no part of the constitution the president is awarded the right to dictate military tactics. Just read ARTICLE II SECTION II CLAUSE 1, " Section 2

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.".

This going to Congress was a miscalculation and a big mistake on at least 4 scores. First, the Republicans have shown themselves to be so politically obstructionist, at least 1/3 of Republican support is not there right off the bat. In fact, enabling the conversation just allows the loud-mouth libertarians like Paul & Cruz to get up on their dogmatic, self-righteous soap boxes. Second, the only people who really turn out for town halls during the August break are tea party activists who see this the way the other loud mouths do...as an opportunity to grab media attention. Third, the rest of the Republicans will see this as an opportunity to dictate military tactics (delegated to the president in the constitution, not the congress) so they will ultimately call Obama dithering & weak. And last, the president cannot rely on his own party. Democrats are notorious for arguing among themselves and shooting each other in the feet. Mistake all around.

LEGAL AWARENESS WELFARE (LAW): Attacking
Syria would be another serious folly for any individual country or
group of countries as that it was on Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Such doers are already labeled as war mongering countries. More
or less it’s the job of UN and its allied international communities'
Organizations that are empowered and authenticated to apply their
efforts to have settled similar situations as that of Syria now with the
consent of maximum number of member countries of the world. Any country
or countries power-play on Syria other than UN would commit a big
blunder to create unrest in the whole world to the extent of causing
fearful 3rd world war, which is bitterly hated by almost all global
people. If they do that, that would be quite at their risks and
consequences.-
A.R.Shams’s Reflection – Series of Press / Online Publications
Worldwide – Moral Messages for Humanity Worldwide -
http://www.arshamssreflection.blogspot.com

Realizing it's no longer enough to blame Bush, or even the entire Republican party, obama has the unmitigated gall to insist he's not to blame. He didn't draw the red line. The whole world drew the red line, and therefore, now THE WHOLE WORLD is to blame!!!!! I, for one, am most sorely tempted to laugh....to keep from crying!

We are a Fox News Nation. Fox News gets what it wants. Bush was caught time after time in lies, yet his war went on. We sat back and let it happen. The main excuse Bush used for his regime change was Saddam used chemical weapons on his people (15 years previously ! ), that he was close to getting nuclear weapons - (a complete ridiculous lie and Bush knew it when he put it in his State of the Union and Condi's aide took the blame even though it had been taken out of a speech before) and that al Qaeda was in Iraq (Saddam and his private army were scared of as Qaeda. Bush lied). Reporters knew Iraq was weaker than it was when his daddy went in. His VP outed a CIA agent whose husband told the truth in an op ed. Bush was not only not impeached for his lies, he made a joke about not finding WMD's at the Correspondence Dinner. What reporter leapt up and said something? There was actually laughter in that room.

A new poll out says the public sees little difference between Democrats and Republicans in Congress. That is beyond alarming. That means our banks are going to take us down again - Republicans push that it wasn't the banks fault. It was banks knowing they could get away with it - and they will do it again.

We can sit back and ignore Syria in it's fight for regime change and it's leader's use of chemical weapons. Yes, we can. We can show our true Christian nature. Obama would have been impeached had he hit Syria without Congressional approval. The House would have impeached him. Because we are a Fox News Nation.

Where does mass genocide stop? Should we have stood by the sidelines in Bosnia after Srebrenica? What about the genocide of WWII.where the US & Allies refused to do anything to cut this off until it was too late. These are stains not just on nations but on civilizations. I support no boots on the ground - limited strikes in Syria...particularly degrading air power...such as bombing airfields...making them unusable for takeoff or landing. The inertia & repulsion about Syria is mostly due to the deception, lies and misuse of force by the last Bush Admin. It's more than confusing and ironic that such an administration so totally discredited then and now was somehow re-elected in 2004. Makes you wonder about the so-called common sense wisdom of the American public.

@lapazjim No, he's not. Obviously he let the generals talk him into a "surge" in Afghanistan (loudly supported by Republicans) - as he also told them clearly we were pulling out at a given date. And we did. Most of our troops are out.

"If" congress votes no, they can live with the fact that their Republican President pushed an invasion on Iraq claiming Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people (15 years before), that he still had them (inspectors were saying that wasn't true and they weren't found ----- and now the same congressmen who pushed that info will vote no when we know Assad used them a few weeks ago and that we can't send a message that they can't be used in warfare. Let them vote no. They're a pile of hypocrites. "If" Romney or McCain were president we'd be bombing Iran and Syria as we speak and Republicans would have voted yes in a heartbeat.

Obama: "I did not put this before Congress, you know, just as a political ploy or as symbolism. I put it before Congress because I could not honestly claim that the threat posed by Assad’s use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States. In that situation, obviously, I don’t worry about Congress; we do what we have to do to keep the American people safe. . . . Ultimately, you (Congressmen) listen to your constituents, but you’ve also got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for America."

Mr Ashton, sorry again, but I think that you are carried away by your affinity with Obama and many other things. The third point of your comment is a little out of proportion. The president is according to the constitution the commander in chief, but in no part of the constitution is specified that he can dictate military tactics unless he is, or any president, a new Hitler. ARTICLE ll SECTION 2 CLAUSE 1,"

1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

I am yet to be convinced that this is not just another political stunt to disorganize the House of Reps, so far, there nothing showing that the President want to do this apart from just talking about it and back tracking then looking for some others to make the decision for the Military action knowing fully well it will not pass Congress

Having seen this guy on the campaign trail, I am confident that if he wanted to do this, he would have done it already and talk about it later eg. Libya, this is a political stunt for some GOP to either jump on-board and he comes back out with another theory and or they dont and be seen as weak in national defense, I have to say that He is smart in this field and knows what he is doing

Remember, this was initially pushed by McCain in the start when he turned it down 2 yrs ago, then the next push -he came with the red line and got called out for it when the attack was claimed the first time and he didnt do anything but was waiting on more proof, then now it became very eminent that we will strike last 2 weeks being that UN report will be too long for us to wait, when all News agencies were saying "it is not a matter of if but when" then it became lets go to congress for approval, then today we are seeking the international approval with a hint that MAYBE Putin will be convince when the UN report comes out

@Stinger Uh, Saddam DIDN'T have WMD's at the time of the war, genius. Even Bush admits that now.

Furthermore, making a case for AIR STRIKES in the case of ACTUAL USE of chemical weapons isn't "the same case" as the one for A GIANT GROUND INVASION in the case of MERE POSSESSION, which turned out to be a sham anyway. What an idiot.

@Stinger Replace "0bama" or "the Democrats" with "the United States" and you will start to think about your country instead of your tribe, I mean party. Because anything that makes our commander in chief look weak makes all of the US look weak. Obama's "red line" was a century-old international norm, and his mistake was in thinking that the post WWI agreement about chemical weapons would energize a coalition into action.

The principle that States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.

States have a duty to refrain from acts of reprisal involving the use of force.

You're right. We should just sacrifice Bush to the war gods and all our problems would be fixed. How is this different then Afghanistan. You do realize Saddam Hussein had ALREADY attempted genocide against the Kurds before the US invaded, right? He was gassing his own people for years.

@jmac@lapazjim As Obama attempts us into the same mistakes as past presidents, will you still be blaming past presidents for Syria? Focus on now knuckleheads. Obama is trying to take us into war, NOW. Hello??

@hari_seldon@j45ashton Not a war, my friend. Korea was a war. Vietnam was a war. The Gulf war was a war. What occurred in Iraq & Afghanistan were wars. In all those cases Congress SHOULD have voted to declare or not. They didn't. And there was no great public outcry then about violating the constitution. Now Obama proposes a limited strike, no boots on the ground, and all of a sudden all the liberals & libertarians are out in force decrying one thing or another. Ask yourself. What's the difference? Why now?

@bitsinmotion@Stinger Not only did he not have WMD's - Bush was brazen enough to make a joke about it at a Correspondence Dinner. He pretended to be looking under a chair in the Oval Office and said, nope, no WMD's here. He thought it was funny. Ha Ha = the jokes on you Stinger.

So, launch your missiles, drop your bombs and kill more men, women and children - then you'll appear really strong ? You've been doing that relentlessly for the last few decades - do you think you appear stronger than before ?

Read a book. There are hundreds out there. You can start with Bush's terrorist's tsar - Clarke. Libby lied. He should have gone to jail but Bush let him off the hook. He didn't pardon him, though, so the man has a small conscience somewhere. I appreciate that he stays home and paints. I appreciate that Colin Powell isn't going to have a comment on Syria. They all need to hide their heads. They hurt us tremendously.

George Bush has not left the White House. His legacy lives on in our economy and the banks still playing casino and Republican's in denial on what caused our economic collapse - and the fact that other nations now don't trust our intelligence because Bush and Cheney cherry-picked to sell you a war.

Go read Scherer's latest post on Obama answers to the press on Syria. It's night versus day compared to Bush. It's beyond refreshing to read from the man I didn't vote for in 2008.

@RamonRoman@j45ashton Quoting the UN charter? One of the most ineffectual organizations ever brought? Tell you what...let's put you in the middle of Syria with the understanding that the UN is going to come to your rescue. And let's see if you break a sweat.

@Ahu@j45ashton Saddam used chemical weapons fifteen years BEFORE we invaded. Bush used it as an excuse 15 years later. AFTER his VP shook Saddam's hand in an oil deal. Saddam didn't use them when George H. W. Bush took back Kuwait. He was so weak by that point he and his army curled up in a ball. Junior lied in his presentation to the UN about chemical weapons - they were not where Colin Powell so dramatically pointed - just as the weapons inspectors who had been to the sites were saying on C-Span. Of course, Jr didn't watch C-span - he was busy reading The Washington Times. The man was an idiot.

@j45ashton@hari_seldon Mr ashton, sorry to follow your comments, but they are based mostly in knowledge of your heart than in facts. Mr Obama don't go for Congress for Approval for a war. The congress evaluates the facts presented to it and according to this they declare war. The congress declares war. ARTICLE l , SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11. Now for your enlightenment see what the president can do before the congress declares war, reading the WAR POWERS of 1973, that this Act contravenes totally the principles of International Law of the UN is a fact. Well, what do you expect from the most powerful country of the world.

@hari_seldon@j45ashton There's a difference. Obama has said that if things get bigger than the limit strike he was duty-bound to go to Congress for approval and according to the constitution that approval is binding. So the reason you doubt the presidency in this case is because of past presidents: Truman (Korea), Johnson & Nixon (Vietnam), Geo W Bush (Iraq). All other actions were indeed limited engagements. Clinton (Kosovo), Reagan (Grenada & Lebanon), Geo HW Bush (Kuwait). There is no reason to think that Obama is more in the Truman/Johnson/Nixon/ W Bush camp than he is in the Clinton/Reagan/ HW Bush camp. The problem is...for what reason God only knows...he opened this 'police action' up to debate.

@j45ashton@hari_seldon Dude, all those other wars started as "limited actions". Kerry during his testimony admitted the "the no boots on the ground" stipulation could be over-ridden in many many instances. And the Senate is already drafting

Don't you understand the whole "limited action" thing is a trick? Because once the "limited action" begins you can't stop escalation (which I believe our war-mongers are counting on)

If and when Syria (or Russia or Iran) fires a missile at one of our ships in retaliation will it still not be a "war"?

@j45ashton@CarlLegg Are you against the US killing children? Or only against the death of children when we aren't doing it? Do you realize we have and currently continue to kill children with our drone program. Look up "al-Ma'jalah" - this is where the US killed children (and women) with incendiary cluster bombs. Do you also realize bombing a densely populated country like Syria will also kill children?

I don't get this selective outrage even as I agree killing children is awful. I don't want us doing more of it either....

@j45ashton I forgot, this is not the UN CHARTER, this is one of the principles of internation law approved in the UN by all the members, including the USA. Don't be an ignorant besides being a fanatical jingoist.

@j45ashton@RamonRoman What do you mean? The USA is the absolute authority in the world? Are you insane? Why Putin doesn't bow to it? Why China doesn't bow to it? If you want me to break a sweat waiting for the UN to rescue the terrorists in Syria, then answer this, Who started all the mess in the middle east? All of it.

Talking about rescue. Why your USA hasn't rescued the Palestinian from the concentration camp that the Zionists have with the conniving of your country? You are laughable.

What you're saying is that because the crime happened in the past, it's okay. If I kill someone, I can still be punished for it even if I don't get caught until 15 years later. We're talking about genocide... what about the Nazis regime and war crimes, based on what you're saying you can do whatever you want not be punished as long as X amount of time passes between the event and when you're caught.